From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Sat Jul 26 19:55:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA20575 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 19:55:06 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA12867 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jul 1997 18:23:27 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 18:23:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199707262323.SAA12867@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #262 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Saturday, July 26 1997 Volume 01 : Number 262 In this digest: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) Re: IN> Saints, and a "Night Music" review! Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Graduations, Saints, and "Night Music"... Re: IN> Dark In Nomine Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Angels & Religion Re: IN> Malakim of Creation Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy IN>Paradox Angels IN> Dominic Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Angels & Religion Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Dark In Nomine Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: IN>Paradox Angels Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:13:54 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Frederick Subject: Re: Why Mix Superiors? (Re: IN> Malakim of Creation) Dear Jeff, Beth, other too numerous to mention and List At 02:04 PM 25/7/97, you wrote: >At 02:43 AM 7/25/97 GMT, Jeff Miller wrote: >>On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:34:22 -0400, Elizabeth McCoy >> wrote: >> >>>I suspect that they only gain the dissonance conditions if they >>>are also able to invoke that Superior -- if they're just told >>>to go work *with* somebody's group, they will follow their >>>Archangel's orders, but don't have the dissonance conditions. >> >>Agree, but the Archangel borrowing them will generally want them bound by >>his dissonance so they're on their best behavior not to undermine his Word. >>That might not happen in all cases, but I think it's the general case, at >>least for PCs. >> >If you want to force the PCs to act in a certain way, you should just >announce it at the beginning. > >I think that it is quite illogical to assume that *any* superior is going >to put up wiht someone else mucking with their Servants' fundimental natures. But if you are on secondment to another AA then you are not "their" Servant, just giving them a hand. Actually I can see this as being a reason this doesn't happen too often because for example David's Servitors will see the Angel of War just wading in and maybe one or to will start wonder Why can't I do that? >>>Dissonance conditions would only apply to long-term loans, and >>>maybe not even then. (Eli's do *not* get them, for instance; >>>neither do they get freebie attunements from their temp AAs, >>>though.) >> >>Freebie Attunements? I thought Attunements would be handed out free only as >>a special reward, and Eli's servants would be as eligible as any. (But >>Elians do have trouble getting distinctions.) >> >She's talking about X of Y attunments that come about because the Servator >shares the nature of the Superior. That same shared nature that causes the >Dissonance. > >Celectials gain Dissonance by going against their nature and they share >some of their Superior's nature which is why they gain their Superior's >Dissonance. I tend to see this as a range of association. Any Angel can be ordered to work with the Servitors of any AA for any period without gaining the Dissonance restrictions of the Second Superior, until the Angel starts accepting attunements, rites and distinctions from the Second Superior. This shows a growing connection between the Angel and the Second Superior, which at some point is going to put the Angel so close to the Second Superior that he _should_ get the Dissonance restriction. I also think that this could be a good thing and depending on the Superiors they might be happy to have the intermediary Angel. I would also hope that having gained maybe a rite and an attunement from a Second Superior an Angel would dicuss the situation with his First Superior and maybe volunteer to take on the Dissonance restirction of the Second Superior. >There is nothing in one of Jordi's servants nature that tells him that he >can't retreat from a fight. Only if Michael were to go inside and twist >the Angel's nature could he force an Angel into taking his Dissonance. While I would use the term "enlighten" for a change to an Angel's nature, hoping that it was at least partially a consentual change, I agree. Thanking you for your indulgence. Yours Peter. Email to peterf@geko.net.au "Whoso loveth God truely must not expect to be loved by Him in return." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:18:08 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN> Saints, and a "Night Music" review! John Karakash - Lucent ASCC wrote: > Night Music (Revelations I) Gee, John... Thanx!! I know I speak for everyone here...:-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:39:32 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels Patrick O'Duffy wrote: > Schrodinger? Definitely Schrodinger!!! Forget all other entries!! But, for better playability (who knows how to pronounce it anyway??), why don't we use his first name - Erwin? Andre ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:07:28 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels Highway Star wrote: > >Ouch. An Archangel of Paradox.....I love it. Gonna have to write this > one up. > >Can anyone help suggest a name? > > Evan.:) I like Evan... but it lacks the authority the job requires... > Or how about Albert? Albert?!? Geez... What about Louis?? Andre ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:22:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels > bertishg@db.erau.edu wrote: > >Can anyone suggest a name for an Archangel of Paradox? > Why, This Angel Has No Name, of course! Oh, dear.."Hi there. I'm the Archangel Who Names All Archangels Who Do Not Name Themselves." (Mind, I'm saving Xeno for the Demon Prince of Paradox.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:09:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation > For the suicidal angel, a tiny amount of antimatter can really > ruin a demon's day... Oog...I don't know that I'd consider antimatter `simple'. (I realize that technically it's as simple as any regular matter, but I don't think an Attunement geared toward matter would reasonably construe it as such..) Besides; granting that Eli doesn't officially do it, I'd suggest that creating antimatter with one of his Attunements would be Dissonant... (Or at least one of the few ways to seriously annoy him. Especially for Malakim, there's a big difference between corporeally suicidal and REALLY suicidal that needs to be considered here..) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:36:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Resonating Celestials (Re: Seraph resonance) > > I think that's exactly why the answer should be 'no'. You don't > >disturb the Sym when you damage a demon, so the Kyrio doesn't need to > >worry about it. I think they normally get their Dissonances because Walter Milliken expanded the conversastion with; > This is a more general question, too. For example, if a Cherub uses his ... > I'd say yes -- the Cherub is violating *his* nature, which is to protect > his attuned. The fact that the attuned isn't part of the Symphony isn't > relevant. I agree with this entirely; there's THE Symphony, and then there's each Celestial's personal Symphony. Seraphs can't lie to demons, Cherubs can't betray them, and Kyrios can't harm them as hosts... Similar to your note that some of the Superiors specifically set down rules where Kyrios can harm a host, I'd also note that there's a specific mention under the Mercurian Resonance that they CAN hurt demons. So if Kyriotates COULD ignore their Dissonance with demons, I think it would similarly be specified. > Hmmm... can a Kyrio possess a mummy? I don't see any reason why not, the way undead are handled in In Nomine...(As I've noted before, `undead' is used more aptly here than in most systems. They're not `walking dead' or `animated dead' or any of the usual - most of them have actually never died. The only known exception to that is the Zombi Attunement, which suggests that if you start from a corpse, a Zombi is the BEST you can hope for...mummys and vampires aren't human anymore, but they're definitely SOME kind of `life'...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 20:46:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Kingsley Lintz Subject: Re: IN> Redeeming Shedim (Was: Dark In Nomine) > Also, (and this goes for *any* of the princes...) what was that bit about > having your heart locked in a cage? Ahhh yes! page 185...."most Princes keep > And of course, the juicy part is earlier in that article..."But be careful- > wherever you go, your prince can grab your Heart and squeeze...and find you." > Actually given the explanation on pg 185 I wonder how any renegades ever make > it...You would pretty much have to do it with the full intention of switching Successful Will roll shatters your Heart, I believe. (I can't find it offhand, but I'm sure I got that impression from SOMEWHERE..) > Hmmm...say I'm a demon, and I want to be *independant*...that might be > possible if I cut a deal with Lilith. Sure, now I owe her favors, but it's a Um, cutting a deal with Lilith isn't the fastest way to real independance.. Ask any Free Lilim.. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:47:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Andre Ribeiro wrote: > > Evan.:) > > I like Evan... but it lacks the authority the job requires... > > > Or how about Albert? > > Albert?!? Geez... > What about Louis?? I was rather hoping for something more 'angelic' sounding, perhaps with Qabbalistic undertones. I'm inclined towards Dina at the moment, though I'm not entirely happy with it. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:30:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Graduations, Saints, and "Night Music"... > > You mean religion is something like a course - humans > > "study" it to become something else (a being spiritually more elevated, > > or something...) - and the angels don't need it because they've already > > graduated. Now they teach. Hmmm, it's kinda interesting... > > Yeah, sounds about right from my point of view. Of course, as any really > good teacher knows, that path of learning and enlightenment is a > never-ending one... > As they also know, only someone dishonest teaches something they don't believe. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:52:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine > > > As it stands, celestials are fighting a War in which humans have > an important role to play (unlike the WoD, where humans are irrelevant), > but it's often in a different theater. Add human mages capable of routinely > smoking demons and celestials, and suddenly the celestials and what they do > isn't nearly as important. This is the same reason why I'm against the > notion of God being a former Ethereal Spirit who just happened to elevate > himself above all the other pagan gods. > Agreed. If you are going to set a game in a certain mythos, you might as well do it whole-heartedly without worrying that you are going to offend someone by producing a game world in which their beliefs are false. Let's let God be God - the one and only right one. If there are pagans out there who pout, we should give them the same responces we give Christians who pout when we put pagan gods in *other* games. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 23:41:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) > > > > Well, its a bit contrived as written, but any group that is > > similar > > > enough to mages but more powerful will ruin the atmosphere, IMHO. > > High > > > powered mages are not *much* like angles, but they are similar > > *enough*. > > > There isn't the difference between say, mages and paradox spirits. > > Gentlemen, we're speaking of Angels (and Demons) here!! But pretty human ones. They are morally better (or worse) than humans, but their thought processes are pretty much the same. I stand by what I said - celestials and mages have much in common. What's the big difference? > > > Heck, give your Celestials as much inherent countermagick as you feel > > appropriate. Justify this by saying that since they're not part of the > > > > Symphony, then Symphonic magick has less of an effect on them. > > I go for it too. If Celestials were almost completely immune to magick, you could put mages in and not unbalance things. It is even a somewhat attractive idea to have angesls as the paradox spirits that try to stop paradigm changes. Of course, its no longer the same to play a Mage, but maybe that's O.K.. > Mages alter the Reality (the Symphony) and > Angels are not part of it. By the way, maybe Mages messing with the > Symphony is ok (they *are* part of it, after all) - but to a certain > extent. Who knows if Paradox Spirits are in fact Angels preserving the > Sym? A good crossover, don't you think? If Angels outclass Mages by being immune to them (being the servants of the real one and only author of reality and everything) that you could add mages and keep a very interesting In Nomine campaign. But that's a cross-over that favours one of the elements pretty heavily. There's not really much left that can be called Mage when reality isn't subjective. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:04:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Angels & Religion > >> >>>In Nomine should clear up the whole question of how Angels relate to > >> religion. > >> In Nomine isn't going to clear these things up because angels don't have > >> definitive answers to most of those questions, any more than humans do. > > > > But humans *do* have practices that they associate with thier beliefs in > >God and Heaven. Humans pray, go to church, (usually) believe the > >religions they foster and think God loves and cares about them. Even if > >there are no absolute answers for angels, there must be cultural > >tendencies. > > Why? Because every other group has cultural tendencies. > I'd suspect there are *individual* tendencies, or Choiral > tendencies, or Superior-based tendencies... But I don't think > those are "culture" in that sense. Even if there are individual tendencies, it would be nice to know which way most individuals go. Is the angel who goes to church religiously every Sunday an eccentric or the norm? Even if there are Choiral or Superior based tendencies, I think that these will have large effects on the way Angels live their lives. Thus, we should be told about them. If Angels think that going to church is right, they are going to *be* there every Sunday. > > The thing about angels and demons is that they don't just *believe* > there's a God of some sort, they *KNOW* it. Christians are still supposed to go to church, nomatter *how* strong their faith is. (O.K., I'm generalising about Christians, but as a rule of thumb, they believe this to be true). > Angels probably *do* pray under stress -- "Oh, God, let me get this > grenade *right* into that demon's car and not hit the school bus" -- > but it's probably only the most heartfelt of prayers. Why not pray all day? Maybe spending all day every day singing the Lord's praises in a magnificent voice is a perfectly good vocation for an Angel. > What an > angel in church is probably doing is sending up "good thoughts;" > heavier on the "thanking the Symphony for the glory around us" than > asking for stuff. Angels *give* stuff/luck, they don't ask. They could ask for help in helping others - praying for strength and so forth. They could even pray for others directly. > > As for which religions are more True? That's individual taste > again. But also a question that Angels know is *damned* important! > Does God love and care about angels as much as humans? > That's probably also individual opinion -- the demons think "no," > and that's part of why they upped stakes and left. The ones who > stayed think that the Way of Things is appropriate, but may or may > not believe that they get seperate but equal Loving. Its hard to believe that they don't think about it though. And after thousands of years of thinking about it (or more), there should be schools of thought. > > Demons, on the other hand, probably have a little problem: they don't > dare pray to anyone or anything. Someone might answer, and *then* > they're in *real* trouble... :D ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:50:05 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Malakim of Creation > >>Wood would be Novalis' domain. > > > > This isn't *Mage*. Besides look at those attunements a bit > >harder. One of them allows the servant of Eli to change things into > >organic or even living substances. > > But that's a different attunement. The creation one allows creation of > *simple* substances. Wood is not simple, just natural. Simple as in no mechanical parts, I think. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:10:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > > > > Example: Idolotry is wrong because God says so. One could believe in Objective Morality without believing this to be so. One could, for example, believe that God says Idolotry is wrong just because it is. Saying that is wrong because God says so makes it sound like God could make torture right by saying so. Worse, there would be no moral reason for him not to make such a decision - his decisions determine reality after all. Its much more comforting if God recognises morality rather than invents it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 00:28:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Gregory Littmann Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Kirt A. Dankmyer -- aka Loki wrote: > >> That's because they're angels, and not humans. Angels have their own moral > >> code, their own resonance that was was set down by God, either directly or > >> indirectly through a Superior. > > > > That's fine, but they are going to *have* a moral code and take it very > >seriously. We really don't have much detail on what Heaven thinks is good > >or bad. > They do. It's set down by their Superior and by their Choir. You're > thinking in a one-size-fits all fashion, and that simply doesn't work for > an angel. They had better have *something* in common morality-wise or they wouldn't all be in a single faction. Dominic and Michael may have their differences, but they hate demons an awful lot more. What's more, they both agree, presumably, that punching a baby in the face for the fun of it is just not on. > This doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of room to move around. This, in > my opinion, is a *good* thing. It makes things much more interesting, and > means that angels can be individuals while still feeling they're serving > Good. But every human culture develops moral schools of thought. Why is every angel on their own? And just how far out on their own can they go? Can an Angel think that not going to church on Sunday is worse than punching a baby in the face for fun? This sort of question is going to come up particularly often with celestials working for Archangels like Jordi - when does an Angel becomes just a garou? > But the thing to remember that the absolute, total Good is something > most angels' aren't even supposed to look at. It's their job to look after > their Superior's Word, and it's up to their Superior to look out for the > larger issues. That fact that the Archangels don't agree on all the larger > issue just makes things more complicated. O.K., but then each superior will at least have a lot to say on this policy. Laurance will either order all his archangels to go to church and obey the 10 commandments, or he won't. We really don't know even vaguely what his views are in this area - whether he thinks the CHristianity preached to humans is for everyone or just humans. > > But it's obvious that the Superiors generally agree on certain things: The > plans of Hell should be thwarted, Because they are such naughty plans - which implies an opinion on what is naughty and what isn't. > angels generally do not wage open war on > each other, humans should be guided toward their Destiny (I don't see > Michael disagreeing with this, just being suspicious as to the way Yves is > going about it), angels should obey their Superiors, Not always. Lucifer went bad. > angels should be > prevented from Falling... The list goes on. No, it doesn't relate to the > Ten Commandments or any *human* law of conduct, and maybe it's a little > more informal, but angels are *different*. The moral rules for them are going to be different in some ways but not in others. To return to my nasty example, you can't have an Angel who thinks its O.K. for themself to torture babies, but wrong for humans too. Some elements of morality are supposed to apply to *everyone*. > Their concern is not with human > matters. Homosexuality is not an issue for angels, because they only have > one gender, regardless of the vessel they were. That's not clear. Why not say that angels have a gender determined by whatever vesel they are wearing today? Any 2 angels can have sex, but if they are wearing the same outfit, that's sin. > It may be different for > humans. Who knows? Not even the angels. Nor the humans, but like decent humans, every angel will care a lot about the answer and try to work it out. And there will be some kind of consensus within groups. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:10:01 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN>Paradox Angels From: Casca >Ouch. An Archangel of Paradox.....I love it. Gonna have to write this one up. Can anyone help suggest a name?< God Adam Canning Dahak@Compusere.Com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 07:10:07 -0400 From: Adam Canning Subject: IN> Dominic From: Thomas Davidson >> Any case in which Dominic was right would rather imply the defendant was > not an Archangel afterwards. Like what happened to Uriel. > I don't think that's what happened. He was recalled to the higher planes of Heaven. In fact, according to the rulebook, p. 53 (on the top left), the implication is that Uriel and Dominic were working together (or that Uriel was working under Dominic's aegis): "Dominic has yet to find another Uriel, someone willing to mount a holy crusade against the spirits of the Marches..." < My take comes from the line Uriel overstepped his word by slaying all the Earths remaining creatures of myth. Uriel is no longer an Archangel. Which would be true for any Archangel that Dominic tried sucessfully. The quote you give can be read as Dominic wants some one to exterminate: Offler the Crocodile God, the surviving Kitsune and Elvis. Alternatively It could equally well say Dominic is looking for anyone who might do it so that like Uriel they can be chastised for going against the will of God. This I find more likely since finding out who wants to break the rules is Dominic's job and upstairs has ruled that killing Mythical creatures for no better reason than they are not angels is wrong. Adam Canning Dahak@Compuserve.Com "When you ask for more from the archangels they expect that much more from you." Nicole Mercurian of Fire [ or Faith depending which version of A Bright Dream you read.] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:27:47 -0300 From: Andre Ribeiro Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels Adam Canning wrote: > From: Casca > >Ouch. An Archangel of Paradox.....I love it. Gonna have to write this > one > up. > Can anyone help suggest a name?< > > God Uhhh...! Creepy...!! That means Paradox Spirit/Angels are Angels who work directly with God, with no intermediaries... Not surprise Mages fear them so much... Andre ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 15:51:24 -0100 From: Henry Leirvoll Subject: Re: IN> Angels & Religion At 00:04 26.07.97 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >>>In Nomine should clear up the whole question of how Angels relate to >> >> religion. >> Why? I thought In Nomine already did this. - Laurence is the patron to Christianity, and wants to forward catholocism on earth. - It also indicates, when read about Heaven, that every earthly religion has its representative in Heaven. The whole issue narrows down to one thing, in my opinion .. No special religion is the ultimate TRUE ONE .. There is God - then there are interpretations of God. They all look to the same God (humans that is), even though they may have different ways of percieving him. This is the image I get from In Nomine, anyway. The whole issue of RELIGION as far as Heaven goes, is relatively uninteresting - if you ask me. Playing In Nomine, we Know that there is a God, and how the Mundanes see it, should be .. well .. not all that important. - -- 0000,0000,ffffH. Leirvoll / kulde@intercom.no ICQ - UIN : 1255494 ffff,0000,0000- ^Heksheim / Black Metal^ - http://www.intercom.no/~kulde ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 11:17:01 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) > > Mages alter the Reality (the Symphony) and > > Angels are not part of it. By the way, maybe Mages messing with the > > Symphony is ok (they *are* part of it, after all) - but to a certain > > extent. Who knows if Paradox Spirits are in fact Angels preserving the > > Sym? A good crossover, don't you think? > > If Angels outclass Mages by being immune to them (being the servants of > the real one and only author of reality and everything) that you could add > mages and keep a very interesting In Nomine campaign. But that's a > cross-over that favours one of the elements pretty heavily. There's not > really much left that can be called Mage when reality isn't subjective. Reality is subjective - if it can be changed by belief, it is subjective. But the Technocracy has just been replaced by something much more powerful and *different*. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 11:17:00 +0000 From: "Nathaniel Eliot" Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine > > As it stands, celestials are fighting a War in which humans have > > an important role to play (unlike the WoD, where humans are irrelevant), > > but it's often in a different theater. Add human mages capable of routinely > > smoking demons and celestials, and suddenly the celestials and what they do > > isn't nearly as important. This is the same reason why I'm against the > > notion of God being a former Ethereal Spirit who just happened to elevate > > himself above all the other pagan gods. > > > Agreed. If you are going to set a game in a certain mythos, you might > as well do it whole-heartedly without worrying that you are going to > offend someone by producing a game world in which their beliefs are false. > Let's let God be God - the one and only right one. If there are pagans > out there who pout, we should give them the same responces we give > Christians who pout when we put pagan gods in *other* games. Actually, I think the reason for God being just a powerful Ethereal is less PC and more plot based. If you base In Nomine on most Christian thought, God is omnipotent and omniscient. Which causes the same problems in the game that it causes in Christian thought - why doesn't he just smoke the demons, and make the world right? In other words, God is fated to win, demons are fated to loose, and any player or GM who wants an epic game is going to be disappointed. Now, granted, there is room for small victories and defeats, but even that seems to lack purpose. This is not to say that you must tell your *players* that conventional Christian thought is wrong. The less they know, the more fun their resulting philosophical antics are. But (to bring this thread back to it's origins - my WoD/IN conversion), if god isn't omnipotent/omniscient, then there are two options: a) He lost some power when he created the universe, and everything that he *creates* weakens him still more. The idea here is that there is a finite amount of power in the universe - if he has it all, than there isn't anything else. If there is something else, than he must have less than all. b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. He was a powerful Ethereal spirit (Yaweh, a war god) who discovered a new source of power. This is the option that I am using, not because it is necessarily better, but because it strikes me as less Dark than the other. Nathaniel Eliot temujin9@ix.netcom.com Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. - Milton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:51:14 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels At 3:08 PM -0700 7/25/97, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: >> >> bertishg@db.erau.edu wrote: >> >Can anyone suggest a name for an Archangel of Paradox? >> > Schrodinger? Zeno? - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 10:56:43 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy > > > > Example: Idolotry is wrong because God says so. Are you sure? Perhaps God says says idolatry's wrong because it is. - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 19:35:54 +0100 From: Sam Kington Subject: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Nathaniel Eliot wrote: [snip] > If god > isn't omnipotent/omniscient, then there are two options: > > a) He lost some power when he created the universe, and everything > that he *creates* weakens him still more. The idea here is that > there is a finite amount of power in the universe - if he has it all, > than there isn't anything else. If there is something else, than he > must have less than all. > > b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. He was a > powerful Ethereal spirit (Yaweh, a war god) who discovered a new > source of power. This is the option that I am using, not because it > is necessarily better, but because it strikes me as less Dark than > the other. c) God isn't good. He created the world, granted, but He's now moved on, He's setting up other worlds and occasionally checks out this one. He set up the angels and demons to take care of the whole housekeeping aspect of making sure human souls end up in Heaven or Hell and are reincarnated properly, and prevent the world from going too far towards Good or Bad - checks and balances, if you like. He's unaware that the War is going on - whenever he visits Heaven (which is very rarely) the Archangels and Demon Princes pretend nothing is going on. To be frank, he doesn't care too much about angels and demons - they're just servants with limited free will. Humans are far superior, so whenever He takes interest in Earth He follows human society. Eli left a while ago to wander the earth in an attempt to create something so worthwhile that God Himself would take notice. Whether this was to show that angels are as worthwhile as humans, or to draw His attention to the War that has got out of hand, is up to you. Comments? Sam - -- There are *my* opinions, dammit, and let no-one say otherwise. Home page: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/ INWO Homebrew: http://www.illuminated.co.uk/cgi/illuminati I went to a general store. They wouldn't let me buy anything specific. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 16:37:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine (was Dominic is not a Bad Guy) > > If Angels outclass Mages by being immune to them (being the servants of > > the real one and only author of reality and everything) that you could add > > mages and keep a very interesting In Nomine campaign. But that's a > > cross-over that favours one of the elements pretty heavily. There's not > > really much left that can be called Mage when reality isn't subjective. It works along the same lines as the Free Will argument. That is, if we assume we have free will, we have control over our own futures; if we don't have free will, it's all part of the illusion anyway -- we only - -think- we have free will, and instead are doing everything according to The Plan. To put this is magickal terms: either it's subjective because God allows it to be thus, or it really isn't subjective and everything is going according to Plan. Either way, magick exists..... I prefer to think of God running reality in a lassez-faire manner. Set things in motion, interefere only when absolutely necessary, and the rest of the time let things solve themselves. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 16:42:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Matthew M. Colville wrote: > > Example: Idolotry is wrong because God says so. > > Are you sure? Perhaps God says says idolatry's wrong because it is. Please, let's not get into a discussion about this as it solves nothing. It's a circular argument: "Why is idolatry wrong?" "Because God says so." "Why does God say so?" "Because it's wrong." .... etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. We either accept the possibility of a Higher Force that is qualified to make policy regarding morality, or we chuck it into the same cans of worms that holds "What is art?" -- in other words, banish it to the abyss of subjectivity. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 17:52:43 -0400 From: Frank Lazar Subject: Re: IN>Paradox Angels >At 3:08 PM -0700 7/25/97, Patrick O'Duffy wrote: >>> >>> bertishg@db.erau.edu wrote: >>> >Can anyone suggest a name for an Archangel of Paradox? >>> >> Schrodinger? > Just don't expect him to come in the Vessel of a cat. :) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | _ | | We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ | | We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ | | Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ | | And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ | | \\__// \\ | | These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ | | \\ | | | Frank Lazar http://www.interactive.net/~fmlazar | \\ | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 17:09:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: IN> Dominic is not a Bad Guy On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Gregory Littmann wrote: > One could, for example, believe that God says Idolotry is wrong just > because it is. Saying that is wrong because God says so makes it sound > like God could make torture right by saying so. Worse, there would be no > moral reason for him not to make such a decision - his decisions determine > reality after all. Its much more comforting if God recognises morality > rather than invents it. There is one problem with this assumption: if God didn't create morality, then who did? God in generally credited with having created all of Creation, and I believe concepts of morality fit under that purview. Heck, God even dictates morality from (Adam's) day one: "Don't eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." So either God created morality, or there's at least one thing whose existence predates God -- which limits God's power. - -- Casca (bertishg@.db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:00:20 -0700 From: "Matthew M. Colville" Subject: Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) At 11:35 AM -0700 7/26/97, Sam Kington wrote: >Nathaniel Eliot wrote: >[snip] >> If god >> isn't omnipotent/omniscient, then there are two options: >> >> a) He lost some power when he created the universe. >> >> b) He never was, and may never be, omnipotent/omniscient. > >c) God isn't good. Omnipotence is a tricky question. Keep in mind that theologians disagree. St. Thomas Aquinas believed that not only could god not do things that were impossible, saying that wasn't limiting his power. Mind you, In Nomine is pretty Augustinian. Augustine believed that god could go things that were impossible. - ---------------------- --------------------------- Matthew M. Colville. Armed only with wisdom mcolville@earthlink.net The Shintao Monks fight against the darkness... Role-Playing and Fiction http://home.earthlink.net/~mcolville ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 16:57:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Casca Subject: Re: Non-omnipotent God (Was: Re: IN> Dark In Nomine) Then there's the option I use: D) God set the world to work a certain way -- physical laws here, spiritual laws there, etc. Once these boundaries are set, it's bad for Him to violate them. Sure, he can if he wants to -- and, on occasion, he has -- but this generates Dissonance. (Consider, if you will, the 'God as GM' model. God made the world, much like a GM makes a campaign world. Certain rules are made to ensure everything runs smoothly and at a predermined level of 'fairness'. The PCs -- representing humanity -- must operate under these laws. The GM, however, can operate outside them because, well, he's the GM. He can do what he wants. Yet doing this leads to grumblings amongst PCs, accusations of unfairness, and possible imbalance within the Game World. Sounds like Dissonance to me....) Being God, however, means that His dissonance is Really Bad. this dissonance manifests itself as opposition to His method of running the world. Let us call this opposition 'Satan'.... Not only does this explain to my satisfaction why evil exists (a necessary byproduct generated when Creation was, well, created) but also why God doesn't squish Satan flat: it's agaisnt the Rules that He Himself created. So He's got beat Satan fair and square, within the Rules, or else He's dissonant and that helps the bad guys. Of course, Satan is similarly constrained: if he brought all his infernal power to bear, humanity would likely notice and react. The more of a cesspool he made it, the more humans would turn to God for salvation, and faith brings with it all those nasty virtues: patience, hope, forgiveness. This sort of thing is abhorrent to him, and hurts his cause -- IOW, it generates dissonance. So now we have a Celestial Cold War in effect. - -- Casca (bertishg@db.erau.edu) ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #262 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.